Didn't see this one coming [/sarcasm]

Iran pre-emptively declares to IAEA, "Hey....guess what, guys?", after learning we've known about it.


Apparently we've known about this for a while (since the Bush administration). No surprises, really. What's amusing is "more harsh words" from the international community. Like that's going to accomplish much of anything.

Another Appeasement Speech

A Most Underwhelming Speech

Obama's Second Charm Offensive in the Middle East

Title comes from a Freedom Eden post.

Read my post on President Obama's Cairo "New Beginnings" speech at FA.

Cozying up to dictators and America's hostiles...

After curtsying to the Saudi King and all but fist-bumping with Chavez, I don't ever again want to hear about Bush shaking hands with Saudi royalty (as if preceding American presidents have not done so) and Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam....

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (R) gives U.S. President Barack Obama a copy of "Las Venas Abiertas de America Latina" by author Eduardo Galeano during a meeting at the Summit of the Americas in Port of Spain, Trinidad April 18, 2009.

REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Paling around with lefty dictators

Oh well....it's the thought that counts...

Uh...yeah, right?

America's Enemies Must be Tickled Pink

dcexaminer:

Thoroughly ingrained Democratic habits -- blaming America first, appeasing
our enemies, and demonizing George W. Bush

The Anti-WarRepublican Movement is Silent

Iranian students tear up a picture of President Obama during an anti-Israel and anti-U.S. rally outside the former U.S. embassy in Tehran.
Morteza Nikoubazl-REUTERS

“We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.”

-President Obama, Aug 2007

Where are the peace activists? 153 killed in the first week of Obama's watch....and Code Pink says nothing.

Afghanis are furious at the U.S., claiming civilian casualties due to an airstrike. President Obama threatens to escalate the war in Afghanistan with a troop surge. Is this the way he plans to win hearts and minds? Why isn't the peace movement up in arms, demanding immediate withdrawal?

There were 36 recorded cross-border attacks and attempts into Pakistan in 2008; does President Obama wish to continue the trend?

At least 21 people were killed during an air strike in Pakistan under President Barack Obama’s administration, several of which were civilian, including children.

(according to The Long War Journal, twenty-nine of these [2008] attacks took place after Aug. 31. There were only 10 recorded strikes during 2006 and 2007 combined.)

And World Can't Wait appears to be silent and waiting....for change?.....when will they protest "STOP OBAMA WAR CRIMES NOW!"???

His EO's on Guantanamo and Interrogations are meaningless rhetoric on paper.

Meanwhile, they are probably tickled pink that President Obama wants to talk with Iran...who could have nukes before the end of the year.

And this is only after week one. (And only in regards to foreign policy matters).

Obama!

Obama!!

Obama!!!

Obama!!!!

Obama!!!!!

Obama!!!!!!

Bush's Third Term?

President George W. Bush greets President-elect Barack Obama as he arrives to the White House in Washington, November 10, 2008.
REUTERS/Jim Bourg

Flopping Aces

Senator Obama and his "Commitment" to Israel

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama casts a shadow on the Israeli and American flags while speaking at an event to honor the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence in Washington.
Mark Wilson - Getty Imag

My post is written over at Flopping Aces

The Distraction of a Rhetorical Flourish

Given that both the Obama camp and the McCain team have been receiving national security briefings in preparation for an Administration handover, do you suppose that Biden Six-Term indirectly leaked something he may have been made privy to?

The anti-war base of the Democratic Party may be in for a rude reality check, as they discover that the world is a dangerous place, that the Bush Administration has been doing its job all this time in protecting Joe Six-Pack and Joe the Plumber; and that confronting America's enemies may not be a partisan issue after all (they already admitted they lied to their base in 2006 to gain political power and House and Senate seats).

For all the huffing and puffing about how Senator McCain is "Senator More of the McSame", Senator Obama sure doesn't have any problem taking credit for the success of the Bush/McCain surge strategy paving the way for possible withdrawal dates; nor for adopting much of President Bush's tax cuts.

Say one thing to constituents, do another once elected. Probably further to the left; but who knows?

"Sarah-cuda" vs. "Barry-cuda"

"I think she’s far more ready to be President if something happens to McCain than Barack Obama would be if something doesn’t happen to McCain."-Mike Huckabee on Hannity & Colmes, August 29, 2008 (video here)

By way of Pondering Penguin:

in an article on YAHOO! News, four 'Presidential scholars' are asked about the choice of Governor Sarah Palin. Examples: "So unconventional was McCain's choice that it left students of the presidency literally "stunned," in the words of Joel Goldstein, a St. Louis University law professor and scholar of the vice presidency. "Being governor of a small state for less than two years is not consistent with the normal criteria for determining who's of presidential caliber," said Joel Goldstein. "I think she is the most inexperienced person on a major-party ticket in modern history," said presidential historian Matthew Dallek." "If she had been around for two terms as governor - or been a senator- it would have been an incredible choice," said historian Doris Kearns Goodwin. "The first thing that hits me," said Stephen Hess of the Brookings Institution, "is that it suggest that John McCain is a gambler. This is a high-roller decision."

Curt writes:

Thanks to reader Kevin Gregory form McClatchy Watch we find that Matthew Dallek is not an impartial voice:

“Presidential historian” Matthew Dallek belongs to an organization trying to elect Barack Obama.
The organization is called “Historians for Obama.”
I blogged about Matthew Dallek here.

Pondering Penguin adds:

The McCain campaign issued the following statement, "The authors quote four scholars attacking Gov. Palin's fitness for the office of vice president. Among them, David Kennedy is a maxed-out Obama donor, Joel Goldstein is also an Obama donor, and Doris Kearns Goodwin has donated exclusively to Democrats this cycle. Finally, Matthew Dallek is a former speech writer for Dick Gephardt. This is not a story about scholars questioning Gov. Palin's credentials so much as partisan Democrats who would find a reason to disqualify or discount any nominee put forward by Sen. McCain."

The issue of "experience" (and more specifically, "the lack thereof") has always stood on shaky ground as a political attack point; and now with Sarah Palin on the McCain ticket, it might be a talking point now off the tables. As Michael Medved lays it out,

Yes, this undermines McCain’s future use of the experience issue, but that’s almost certainly a good thing, too. The experience issue has never worked well in presidential elections: Gerald Ford tried it against a one-term Governor of Georgia (the worthless Jimmy Carter) and lost; Carter tried it against Reagan (no foreign policy experience as Governor of California!) and got wiped out; George H.W. Bush tried to make it stick against Bill Clinton and the result was the lowest percentage of the vote for a Republican candidate since Wiliam Howard Taft. The line McCain’s been using “He’s Not Ready to Lead” is still viable – and should emphasize a discussion of Obama’s policies, not his job history—his radicalism, not his resume. Meanwhile, we should invite comparisons of Governor Palin’s experience with Obama’s: won’t the PTA connect more with middle class voters than “community organizer,” and property tax-cutting small town mayor count more than slippery State Senator who voted “present” a disquieting proportion of the time. In any event, both tickets now balance experience with youthful energy – but McCain is balancing it the right way, with the experience at the top.

If Obama supporters now see an opening for attack in regard to Sarah Palin's "lack" of experience, they will only succeed in bringing back to scrutiny Obama's own leadership (in)experience. (See Curt's chart, by Jeff Emanuel). (Or see my FA cross-post for the chart).

Senator Obama’s spokesman noted upon hearing about Senator John McCain’s selection of Governor Palin: “Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency.”

Do Democrats really want to go there? Which previous experience serves a president better: Legislative or executive?

No matter, Jay Tea writes why it's the "mileage and not the years" that is important:

But what matters to me is not quantity of time, but quality. What Palin has achieved in her political career dwarfs Obama’s accomplishments, as well as those of a lot of other politicians with a lot more time in office.

Just click on the links provided in this post if you are unfamiliar with Sarah Palin's list of accomplishments during time served in public office. Then go visit Wolf Howling (hat tip: Bookworm) for an Obama-Palin comparison that'll leave you howling in stitches.


Further Reads of Interest:
"The Senator party" vs. "the Governor Party" by Michael Medved
Are Senators Doomed to Lose? by Michael Medved
Obama-Biden: First Time in 68 Years a Ticket with No Military Experience by Michael Medved

Cheney Vice Presidency Provides Model for McCain-Palin by American Power

Foreign Policy "Experience" by Thomas Sowell
Need to Know by Cliff May

Also blogging:
Bottomline Upfront
Flopping Aces (Video: Palin vs. Obama on Experience)

The Cowboy Diplomacy Myth of George W. Bush

June 10: President Bush walks to a news conference with European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, Janez Jansa, prime minister of the European Union, and their security detail at Brdo Castle, Slovenia.
Jason Reed-Reuters

President Bush is touring Europe; but he seems to have lost his ability to draw stadium-sized crowds of protests:

The young anarchists, middle-aged peace activists and established left-wing politicians here have at least one thing in common: none bothered to keep a six-year tradition alive by organizing a protest against President Bush’s arrival here Tuesday.

“Bush is not even popular in the role of the enemy anymore,” wrote Der Tagesspiegel newspaper.

As in many other parts of Europe, Mr. Bush was a popular villain here even before the Iraq invasion, in part because of his steadfast rejection of the Kyoto Protocol limits on greenhouse-gas emissions. His visits to Germany have reliably drawn thousands into the streets to denounce him and his policies, beginning with his first visit to Berlin in May 2002.

It would appear the stamina of the Bush-haters has mostly run its course, given that he is serving out the twilight of his presidency; or....could it just be that Europe is finally coming around to its senses? After all, we have seen an increase in pro-Bush and pro-American leaders in the last few years, than anti; And President Bush, contrary to mainstream beliefs, has strengthened our place in the world and strengthened our alliances. It would seem that this is because the cowboy diplomat is also a multilateralist one at that:

Mr. Bush came under early fire after announcing that the U.S. would reject the Kyoto Protocol. Of course, the U.S. had never ratified Kyoto, and the Clinton Administration had refused even to submit it for a vote. In 1997, the Senate voted 95-0 not to endorse any climate change pact that didn't include China, India and other developing countries, as Kyoto didn't. Voting "aye" were Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Harry Reid, among other noted unilateralists.

Then came September 11 and the war in Afghanistan, which the U.S. continues to wage under a NATO flag. Unfortunately -- and despite the honorable exceptions of Britain, Canada and Holland -- few of America's allies in the theater are willing to commit more troops, much less put them in harm's way.

Iraq is where the unilateral myth settled into media concrete. But in fact, in 2002 President Bush bucked the advice of his more hawkish advisers and agreed to take Tony Blair's advice and seek another U.N. Resolution -- was it the 16th or 17th? -- against Saddam Hussein. Resolution 1441 passed 15-0. True, the Administration failed to obtain a second resolution, not least because the French reneged on private assurances that it would agree to a second resolution if America obtained the first. But who was being unilateral there? As it was, the "coalition of the willing" that liberated Iraq included, besides the U.S. contingent, some 60,000 troops from 39 countries, who have operated under a U.N. resolution blessing their presence.

The Bush Administration has since become all too multilateralist, even -- or especially -- regarding the "axis of evil." On North Korea, the Administration adhered strictly to the six party formula. Oddly, the same critics who decry "unilateralism" would prefer that the U.S. negotiate with Pyongyang directly -- which is to say, unilaterally -- and do without the help currently being offered by Tokyo, Beijing, Seoul and Moscow.

As for Iran, following revelations in 2002 that Iran had secretly pursued an illegal nuclear program for 15 years, Mr. Bush agreed to hand over the diplomacy to Germany, Britain and France, the so-called E3. Their efforts failed. So the Administration agreed to negotiate directly with Iran provided the mullahs suspend their uranium enrichment program. The Iranians refused.

Next the Administration succeeded in turning the matter over to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has been seeking answers about Tehran's nuclear file for five years. The IAEA's questions have yet to be fully answered. In 2006, the U.N. Security Council set a deadline for Iran to suspend enrichment. The deadline was flouted. The Security Council has since agreed to three weak resolutions sanctioning Iran. Even as his days in office dwindle, Mr. Bush has adhered to this failing multilateral diplomacy.

Shall we go on? For the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Administration arranged the so-called "road map," which is overseen by the "Quartet" of the U.S., Russia, the U.N., and the European Union. In Lebanon, the Administration worked closely with none other than France's Jacques Chirac to force the withdrawal of Syrian troops in 2005. With Russia, Mr. Bush welcomed its bid to join the World Trade Organization and has rebuffed suggestions -- including from Mr. McCain in his speech Wednesday -- that it be expelled from the G-8.

Mohamed ElBaradei owes his third term as head of the IAEA to the Administration, never mind that he all but openly campaigned for John Kerry in the 2004 election. On Darfur, the Administration has repeatedly deferred to the African Union and a pair of U.N. Secretary-Generals. Even after gathering evidence of secret Sudanese bombing runs in Darfur last year, Mr. Bush bowed to a special plea by the U.N.'s Ban Ki-moon to give diplomacy more time. The killings have continued. On global warming, the Administration has sought a compact with Australia, India and China to develop more carbon-neutral technologies.

Former Clinton official and author of The Superpower Myth, The Use and Misuse of American Might, Nancy Soderberg, acknowledges the diplomacy of the Bush Administration, even as she wants to deny them full credit and rationalize it for her own partisan piece of mind.

Meanwhile, for all those lefties who whine about world opinion and how right after 9/11, the world was our friend, then somehow George W. Bush squandered all the fuzzy-feelings and made the world hate us: Please get a grip. From Matthew Kaminski at WSJ:

Bush Leaves a Robust Atlantic Alliance, After All

By MATTHEW KAMINSKI
June 10, 2008; Page A17

George W. Bush's five-country farewell tour of Europe this week has Pavlov's pundits barking. In Britain's Guardian newspaper, Timothy Garton Ash distills the conventional wisdom that "so much of the [post-9/11] dust-up [with Europe] had to do with Bush himself: his unilateralism, his obsession with Iraq, his cowboy style, his incompetence." Not since Ronald Reagan has America had a less "European" president.

Such bad press plays into the election-year narrative of friends lost and alliances tarnished in the Bush era. So how's this for an inconvenient truth: This American president will bequeath his successor an alliance with Europe as robust and healthy as at any time in the post-Cold War period.

Pro-American governments are in charge in Paris, a first since 1945, as well as every other major European capital (London, Berlin, Warsaw, Rome) except Madrid. On Russia and China, on terrorism, rogue states and the spread of weapons of mass destruction, Europe and America share the strategic diagnosis, if not wholly the cure. A revived NATO leads missions in Afghanistan and the Balkans.

To be sure, Europe hasn't fallen in love with hard power, and Washington didn't sign up for unfettered multilateralism. The improved outlook in Iraq, and the Bush administration's decision to lay off Iran, defused two potential flashpoints late in its term. Even so, recent years have seen a Euro-American rapprochement take hold that silenced shrill predictions of "divorce" or worse in the wake of the Iraq war.

"Trans-Atlantic relations are rather good at the moment," says a senior European Union foreign policy adviser who requests anonymity and is not inclined to Panglossian views of the alliance. "Better than ever," adds another, Alar Olljum, who runs the in-house think tank for the European Commission.

Europeans tend to find explanations in altered American behavior. Here "Bush One" is pitted against "Bush Two": the first term of unilateralism and Iraq and the second of kinder, gentler diplomacy. Condoleezza Rice kicked off the charm offensive with a speech in Paris in early 2005 calling for a fresh start. Europe and America, she said, must together seize "a historic opportunity to shape a global balance of power that favors freedom." Robert Gates replaced the European bête noire Don Rumsfeld at the Pentagon.

Yet the Bush policy on NATO, the Mideast or other big issues didn't change significantly from the first to second terms. Europe itself did.

First came a political shift. Anti-Americanism, while a potent cultural and social phenomenon, turned out to be an electoral loser. Its most prominent European practitioners, Germany's Gerhard Schröder and France's Jacques Chirac, were replaced by politicians friendly to the U.S. such as Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy.

These two were different – let's say more "American" – in other important respects as well. Ms. Merkel isn't only the first woman chancellor, but the first German leader from the old communist East; her moral outlook was shaped by first-hand experience of Soviet totalitarianism. Mr. Sarkozy is the first French leader born after the liberation of Paris, to parents of Jewish and Hungarian stock no less. He doesn't carry Gaullist hang-ups about American power and France's shame about being occupied and then liberated by the allies during World War II.

In his first year, Mr. Sarkozy has pushed for a vibrant NATO and close ties with America – all in the name of strengthening Europe and France. Next year, he plans to bring France back into NATO's military wing more than four decades after Charles de Gaulle wrenched it out. His positive spin on trans-Atlantic relations contrasts with Mr. Chirac's reflexive efforts to check the U.S. at any turn. Mr. Bush has, like Bill Clinton before him, proved a staunch supporter of NATO. In response to the Sarkozy initiative, the administration dropped its skepticism about a common European defense and foreign policy, and backed efforts to get EU countries to pull their military weight. The U.S. has discovered that it needs help in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq anyway it can get it.

Another quiet change since the Iraq war has been a trans-Atlantic convergence of outlooks. In their most recent security strategies, both France and the U.K. highlighted in gloomy terms the threat of terrorism and WMD. Differences remain on proper responses, but the leading Western powers are getting closer.

Finally, Europeans caught a strain of realism. Ironically, the emergence of "a multipolar world" – that great Gaullist dream – was what sobered the Continent's elites about their own relative weakness, and led them back to America. With the rise of non-American powers, Europe was supposed to push its unique brand of multilateralism. But two of the emerging powers, Russia and China, are authoritarian regimes with little time for Europe's utopian model of "permanent peace." The third, India, shows no interest in being allied with an EU saddled with low birth and growth rates.

Europe couldn't find its place in this world. Except, that is, as a partner to the West's leading democracy, the United States. Suddenly gone are the loudly voiced European anxieties going back to the Clinton presidency about an unwieldy "hyperpower." In their place come paeans to shared democratic values, a long common history and the world's by far most lucrative commercial partnership.

Barack Obama or John McCain can build on these foundations next year. Whoever takes over will also inherit from Mr. Bush the unresolved problems of Iran's nuclear bomb program, Afghanistan's fragile state, and an aggressive Russia – just for starters. The next president will look to Europe for help. So we'll soon see how much of a disconnect really exists between European rhetoric and political will.

Will Germany boost its support for the Afghan mission and prove willing to face down Russia over further eastward NATO enlargement? Will the EU unite around a muscular approach toward Iran (assuming America discovers its own muscle)? How much will France resent America's push to embrace Turkey as part of the West? What happens if al Qaeda strikes again?

These questions, once answered, are going to shape the post-Bush trans-Atlantic alliance. If things go wobbly again, the blame may not as easily be laid at America's feet as in the Bush years. Europe could even come to miss its convenient Texan bogeyman.

May the next U.S. President carry on a tradition of strong-arm cowboy diplomacy.

Hat tip: Dennis Prager Show and Joe Schmo's

Sunday Funnies- Cowboy Kumbaya Diplomacy

Politicizing Foreign Policy?!?

“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”
-President Bush before the Israeli Knesset in a speech to celebrate Israel's 60th Birthday

So what exactly did he say that was so terrible?

The Obama campaign released a statement sharply criticizing Bush for these statements.

“It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack,” it said. “George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."

Obama has said several times while campaigning for the Democratic nomination he would meet with “friends and foes” of the United States, a position his rivals, including Hillary Clinton, have scolded him for holding.

“It’s time to end the politics of fear,” is one of Obama’s favorite responses criticisms pertaining to his open negotiation philosophy-- a refrain repeated in his Tuesday statement.

The White House contends the President’s “appeasement” reference was not specifically directed towards Obama. “There are many who have suggested these types of negotiations with people that the president, President Bush, thinks we should not talk to,” White House Press Secretary Dana Perino told reporters in Israel.

“I understand when you’re running for office you think sometimes the world revolves around you” Perino said. “That is not always true and it is not true in this case.”

Ouch.

Newsflash for Senator Obama: President Bush isn't running in '08; here's your political rival.

Here's my favorite part with rousing applause:

"Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it. Israel's population may be just over 7 million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million strong, because the United States of America stands with you."

Blogging:
Flopping Aces/Mike's America

Standing Out in Left Field

Clinton and Obama supporters wave campaign signs outside of Saint Anselm College, awaiting the start of the Jan. 5 presidential debates.
Carlos Barria - Reuters

Obama sign to the left of them....Hillary signs to the right. When it comes to foreign policy matters, the Ron Paul Reverists are standing right where they belong- amidst a sea of Democrats.

Graduate of the Jimmy Carter School of Foreign Policy?!

"when President Bush included Iran in the axis of evil, everything went downhill pretty fast.
Mike Huckabee, Presidential "hope"ful

"I would put him in the Jimmy Carter School of Foreign Policy."
-Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute in response

Read more.

The Huck's ship has sailed, and he's fallen overboard, sinking fast.

I'd throw him an anchor, myself; but I think he's doing just fine, all by himself.

An Undeclared, Informal War on Ron Paul's Foreign Policy

No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.- Ron Paul, on his website under war and foreign policy

Much bellyaching has been made as to "undeclared" wars and the Constitutionality of said wars. Most of the articles I've come across point to the Korean War as the beginning of undeclared wars, with leaders citing Article II, section II of the Constitution, which refers to the President as the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States", as justification for the President to initiate foreign wars without formal declaration. Critics say this is a gross misinterpretation of the provision allowed the President. They often cite Alexander Hamilton as having stated that the President would have "the direction of war when authorized" by Congress, after a formal declaration of war.

Thomas Jefferson, when he was President, also said that he was “unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.”

Interesting, considering Thomas Jefferson waged an undeclared war against Islamic corsairs and state-sponsored piracy. He did so enthusiastically, without bothering to seek Congressional approval. The first presidential flip-flop?

Just as in debates about "Separation of Church and State", I'm sure you can cherry-pick and find all sorts of "gotcha" quotes by the Founding Fathers that (especially when taken out of context) appear to support one's arguments.

The Constitution is one of the most brilliant documents ever written. But as brilliant and revered as the Founding Fathers are, they are not gods, the Constitution is not holy scripture, and Ron Paul is most certainly not their prophet.

When one speaks about departures from "original intent"....that happened almost right away; and certainly happened far before the Korean War. The isolationist/non-interventionist belief Ron Paul has of America is of a romanticized, quixotic past that never existed. We've been intervening, and we've been doing it for a very long, long time. Military campaigns waged without a formal authorized declaration by Congress is not a modern transgression of Constitutional requirements.

Congress has other ways of giving approval, other than formal declarations. This happens anytime Congress appropriates funding.

There have been only five declared wars by Congress. Yet our Presidents since the time of Thomas Jefferson have engaged in at least 12-17+ undeclared wars (depending on how you count them), with some of them having been vitally important to America's self-interest.

Other examples of the distant past (excerpt from Max Boot's The Savage Wars of Peace:

Woodrow Wilson, for instance, ordered the marines to land in Veracruz in 1914 before the Senate had finished debating the matter. The Philippine War, too, broke out before the Senate ratified the Treaty of Paris annexing the archipelago. Congress has generally voted a declaration of war only in the event of hostilities with another major industrialized power and sometimes not even then; witness the quasi-war with France in 1798-1800. Military operations in Third World nations have seldom been seen to require a formal declaration of war.

One of Ron Paul's stock analogies goes along the lines of the following quote by him:

Can you imagine what it would be like if parts of the United States were occupied by a foreign power, if China was building military bases the size of the Vatican in Kansas? People would be up in arms!

His analogy is horribly flawed. With Iraq, the U.S. is not a hostile power. Neither are we a hostile, imperialistic force in ANY country we are in. Germany and Japan benefited greatly from our "occupation", and continue to do so. They are able to save money on military expenditure because they piggyback and rely upon us, as allies, to protect them. It was in our best interest to help their countries, and in helping to build France back up as a consequential country on the world stage. Really, after the 2nd War, France was nothing. But we needed to help our European allies recover and become strong again, in light of the Stalinist threat.

I'll also add to here, a comment Scott Malensek left in response to a RPer (who listed "150" countries, probably because RP himself mentions "130"):

the US has forces in a lot of countries, and in almost all cases as guests and at the request of those countries even to the benefit and request of their citizens. Too often paranoid politicos see the presence of US forces in 150 countries as imperialistic, but in places like Ramstein, or the UK, or Canada, or perhaps 130+ other countries, those troops are awfully welcome and help protect those people. American forces aren't invading 150 countries, or terrorizing them, or even hurting them-quite the opposite. In fact, I'm not even sure the 150 country claim is accurate, and it certainly isn't accurate to portray an image that the US is alone or even in a small group of countries that have forces in other nations (see also nations that contribute to UN peacekeeping etc).

More in a new post from Scott at FA.

Maybe RP's watched Red Dawn one too many times; but analogizing a China takeover of the U.S. to what our forces are accomplishing over in Iraq or elsewhere in the world is just logic-impaired.

Furthermore, historically, it is quite the norm for us to turn our warriors into social workers, as an occupying force. As Max Boot writes,

Soldiers follow orders, and presidents have often found it convenient or necessary to order the armed services to perform functions far removed from conventional warfare. Throughout U.S. history, marines at home and abroad have found themselves providing disaster relief, quelling riots, even guarding mail trains. Soldiers also have often acted as colonial administrators- in the Philippines, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Veracruz, to say nothing of post-World War II Germany and Japan or the post-Civil War South.

In fact occupation duty is generally necessary after a big war in order to impose the victor's will on the vanquished. If ground forces win a battle and go home, as the Powell Doctrine advocates and as actually happened in the Gulf War, the fruits of victory are likely to wither on the vine. Only boots on the ground can guarantee a lasting peace.

Boot goes on to point out (page 345-347 of The Savage Wars of Peace) how pacification campaigns and occupation of many third world countries made life better

Many of these interventions also delivered tangible benefits to the occupied peoples. Although American imperial rule was subject to its fare share of abuses, U.S. administrators, whether civilian or military, often provided the most honest and efficient government these territories had ever seen. Haiti offers a particularly dramatic example. The 1920s, spent under marine occupation, saw one of the most peaceful and prosperous decades in the country's long and troubled history.

Where we have been most successful with lasting impact, are in those places where we kept our forces for a long period of time.

What does all this have to do with America's national security interests? If you cannot see it, then you are more than likely an isolationist; and being an RPer, one who demands we draw a distinction between an isolationist, and a non-interventionist.

And what is the price of non-intervention?

Stalin was testing...probing America's will and reach during the Cold War; what if we had sent a clear message to the Kremlin, that America was practicing a non-interventionist policy by allowing communism to spread to other countries? Would the world be safer today? Subsequently (because the answer would be a resounding "NO!"), would we be safer? No.

In 1939, what if Franklin Roosevelt did not find a way to provide military aid to Britain and France against the rise of Adolf Hitler? Our late intervention in the war....did it make America safer? Is it in America's best interest, not to practice an interventionist policy to help protect our allies? The very fact that we trade and do commerce with foreign nations, entangles us.

If one were to practice Paulian non-interventionism in one's personal life, you would stand neutral or turn aside, not lifting a finger, while your girlfriend got mugged. After all, you wouldn't want to experience blowback from the mugger's wrath, and have him mug you as well.

The Price of Nonintervention

In considering whether, based on the lessons of the past, we should undertake small wars in the future, we ought to remember not only the price of a botched intervention- Vietnam, Beirut, Somalia- but also the price of not intervening, or not intervening with sufficient determination. Two examples come to mind: Nicaragua and Russia.

In the former case, President Coolidge in 1925 withdrew from Managua the legation guard of 100 marines that had helped preserve stability for 13 years. Within a few months, Nicaragua was once again embroiled in revolution, and many more marines returned for a much longer stay.

In revolutionary Russia, Woodrow Wilson and David Lloyd George missed a prime opportunity in 1918-1919 to help topple the nascent Bolshevik regime. There is reason to believe that with slightly more Western help the Whites could have won the civil war- and in all likelihood changed the course of twentieth-century history immeasurably for the better. These examples are worth balancing against the Vietnam analogies that inevitably, tiresomely pop up whenever the dispatch of American forces overseas is contemplated.

Chapter 15 Pax Americana, pg 346 The Savage Wars of Peace, by Max Boot

This RPer, at least has a well-reasoned constructive critique of Ron Paul's "bring the troops home immediately" from everywhere, attitude:

I have serious reservations about the foreign policies Dr. Paul espouses. I do believe in non-interventionism in principle, but I do not believe that a nation's foreign policies should be changed drastically in a very short period of time, and this is the impression I get of what Dr. Paul would have the US do if he became president. If the United States withdraws from South Korea and gives China a carte blanche to invade Taiwan, as Dr. Paul has suggested it do, that will cause a serious disruption in the world and decline of US's economic strength. Even if the policy to get involved in East Asia was wrong to begin with, the US has made commitments to that region and has to live with the consequences of its commitments. Trillions of US investment dollars have flowed into Taiwan and South Korea as a result of the understanding that the US would protect by force any armed invasion of those countries by socialist nations. To change course and withdraw that guarantee of support is a betrayal of the highest magnitude and I believe cannot be justified in any way. Besides Taiwan and South Korea, China itself could nationalize trillions of dollars worth of American assets if it perceives that the US will no longer militarily respond to such a move. I'm not suggesting that if Ron Paul becomes president, then the next day China will nationalize all industries. What I do believe though is that if a policy of non-interventionism takes effect, China will probably take over Taiwan, and eventually, North Korea will take over South Korea. With a strengthened military and economic position, I very much believe China would then feel confident in nationalizing foreign owned assets in its country. The strategic landscape will be significantly altered to China's advantage and Americans will lose hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars in assets they have invested in that country. This scenario is absolutely intolerable and must be avoided at all costs.

We live in an age where America can no longer enjoy the protections of two oceans, as it once did. Although the Constitution is our compass and the North Star by which we may steer this nation, we must not be so inflexible as to not adapt to a world that our Founding Fathers could not have foreseen us living in. America's self-interest of free trade and commerce must extend to helping to protect the welfare and safety of our friends and allies. Evil regimes must be stopped beyond our waters edge.

A nation's first duty is within its borders, but it is not thereby absolved from facing its duties in the world as a whole; and if it refuses to do so, it merely forfeits its right to struggle for a place among the people that shape the destiny of mankind. - Theodore Roosevelt

Originally posted at Flopping Aces

Educating Ron Paul, Part I (Blowback)

“Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.”-Jean-François Revel

After Giuliani embarrassed Ron Paul in the 2nd Republican Presidential Debate last month, The RP damage control team has attempted to patch up Ron Paul's campaign by "educating Rudy". Basically, it is their argument that Rudy Giuliani, by evoking President Bush's "they hate us for our freedom" line of thought, is being simplistic. Ron Paul recommends a reading list to Rudy, that includes

"Dying to Win," which argues that suicide bombers only mobilize against an occupying force; "Blowback," which examines the unintended consequences of U.S. foreign policy; and the 9/11 Commission Report, which says that Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was angered by the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia. Another book on the list was "Imperial Hubris," whose author appeared at the press conference to offer support for Paul.

Paul said it was irresponsible of Giuliani and other leaders to not examine the motivations of al Qaeda and other radical Islamic groups. Well, what are their motives? Ron Paul says we should listen to their own words; what they tell us. It's true that Islamists will cite their perception of American foreign policy as an ingredient to their drive toward violence as well as our presence on "their" soil, and support for governments in the Middle East that they don't approve of. But what is the underlying, root cause? After all, as Ryan Mauro so excellently puts it,

Many people point to the sources of anti-Americanism as the cause of terrorism, but anti-Americanism does not translate into an acceptance of, and willingness to participate in, suicide bombings. It is not fair to blame anti-Americanism (and thus American policy causing anti-Americanism) as the cause of the sickness, because hatred of one country’s policy does not lead most people to justify killing innocents. After all, most of Western Europe and Latin America is anti-American, but they aren’t participating in terrorism. The deliberate massacring of civilians, although conducted by many groups over history, is currently unique to the Islamic world, specifically the Middle East and North Africa.

What Ron Paul fails to acknowledge, is the threats of radical Islam. That is the fuel that fires the violent "jihadist" mentality.

These Islamist fundamentalists oppose U.S. support of Middle Eastern governments, because these governments are not Islamic enough for them. They consider any secular government an aberration and an offense to God, because it is created by man's arrogance to supplant Sharia Law. The salafists and wahabbists prey upon the feelings of injustice and oppression by the governments upon their people to sell them the snake oil of Islamic fundamentalism as the cure to their ailments.

Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri have made it clear that their endgame plan is to create a a pan-Islamic Super-State.

Ephraim Karsh:

Yet it was not America's perceived weakness that brought about the September 11 attacks, as Mr. Lewis argues, but rather its undeniable prowess. This is because Mr. bin Laden and other Islamists' war is not against America per se but is rather the most recent manifestation of the millenarian jihad for a universal Islamic empire, the umma.

As the preeminent world power for quite some time, and the only remaining superpower after the collapse of the Soviet empire, America blocks the final realization of this goal and hence is a natural target for aggression. In this sense, the House of Islam's war for world mastery is a traditional, indeed venerable, quest that is far from over.

The creation of a new Islamic Caliphate as a launching pad for a final showdown against all infidels isn't the dream of just al-Qaeda Qtubists; the Shia-branch of militant Islam in Iran awaits the coming of the 12th imam. Ron Paul's foreign policy does not take into account Ahmadinejad's claim that he was “directed by Allah to pave the way for the glorious appearance of the Mahdi”, who endorses a violent path to conquering the world.

It is the radical, violent ideology of the Islamists that drives Osama bin Laden; not "we're over there. That's why they attacked us".

Any perceived trespasses by American foreign policy is just slant-sided propaganda, pushed for the purposes of recruiting more anti-American hirabists and sympathizers to rally around their cause. Apparently, it's also been effective in swaying the opinions of American politicians and world opinion against us. This is why the anti-Americanism that is preached by the Ward Churchills and the Howard Zinns and the Noam Chomskys is so dangerous at the university level. Young people looking for something to believe in, an idealistic cause to take up arms over, are vulnerable to being influenced by radicals.

When blame-America-firsters rail against American foreign policy as a root cause of anti-Americanism, what they fail to note that it is a perception issue. After all, American foreign policy is also what has us pumping financial aid to so many countries, as well as coming to the rescue of so many people, including Muslims.

Ryan Mauro further writes,

While American policy surely causes anti-Americanism, and policy should be fixed to reduce that, there are limits. For example, Islamists may condemn our culture, but does that mean we eliminate our freedoms to sooth their anger? Islamists, and the governments that promote them, deliberately manipulate the feelings of the population. Their hatred comes from half-truths. One only needs to take a quick glance at American foreign policy to see that terrorism does not emanate from an objective critique of our actions.

For example, while Islamists condemn our support for Israel and presence in Saudi Arabia, they make no mention of what we have done for Muslims. During the Cold War, we staunchly opposed any Soviet interference in the Middle East. In the 1980s, the mujahideen in Afghanistan were backed by America to defeat the Soviets. In 1990, the U.S. freed Kuwait from the Iraqis, and defended Saudi Arabia, Islam’s holy land, from his probable scheme to invade. In 1995 and 1999, we fought on the side of the Muslims to protect them against the Serbs and Croatians, who were Christians! In 1999, the US hurt relations with Russia by criticizing their action in Chechnya. And it was American pressure that caused Israel to withdraw from the Gaza Strip, forcing Jewish families from their homes, so the Palestinians could make it a homogenous area for themselves. While the U.S. does sell arms to Israel, we do the same for Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and its Arab enemies. Just like the radical Muslims manipulate the interpretation of the Quran for evil ends, they also manipulate the interpretation of American policy for evil ends.

Likewise, while anti-Semitic feeling is real in the Islamic world, Israel is also a scapegoat in many cases. Few people know that Israel actually treats the Palestinians better than any Arab country does. The entire Palestinian problem was created by Arab nations refusing to allow the Palestinians into their country, and even today, Palestinians are denied citizenship and rights in the Arab world. There are religious disputes, of course, but we must question why this translates into violence and a demand that one side simply not exist. Israel allows Muslims to visit their Holy Sites and even lets them vote in municipal elections (Bard, 221-223). This isn’t to say Israel is perfect or their positions are correct, but one must ask why Israel, which is the least oppressive in the region (even towards Muslims), is the target.

Dr. Tawfik Hamid, a former Al-Qaeda terrorist and associate of Ayman al-Zawahiri, also disagrees that American policy is what caused 9/11. In his book, he describes how he was taught not to think, how all misery was blamed on the infidels, and how 72 virgins awaited him in heaven, which was a treasure because sex before marriage, masturbation, and even looking at a woman in certain ways were strictly forbidden. Dr. Hamid describes how verses of the Koran are used to teach their students to kill the infidel, arguing that these verses are what cause terrorism, not current events. He also describes the history of violent political Islam, highlighting how it goes back to before the establishment of either the state of Israel or the United States. Hamid’s thesis is that all Islamic terrorism emanates from “purists” who forcefully took control of the Arabian Peninsula, thus controlling the heart of Islam (and able to shape it to their mold), and then during the 20th century, they exported this form of Islam using the oil wealth. He also notes that more Muslims have been killed by Islamic terrorism than Americans or Israelis, so the idea that the Israel issue is the primary motivator is false.

Muslim upon Muslim violence is not America's fault. It is the fault of the radicalization gene inherent within the Koran. (No, I am not saying that all Muslims are evil- I believe that most are not). American foreign policy is the scapegoat.

After the first debate in which Rudy Giuliani called Ron Paul out on his comment, Ron Paul brought in Michael Scheuer as his back up.

Michael Scheuer is held up by the Paulistas as the go-to expert to give validity to Ron Paul's foreign policy opinion.

Why?

Why is he the expert? Because he was the CIA's senior intelligence analyst who created the bin Laden unit for the purposes of tracking and hunting the al-Qaeda leader down (we know how that worked out, right?). Howard Zinn is supposedly the "expert" on American history. Does this make him "right"? The CIA are experts in their field; yet how often have they been failing us and getting things "wrong"? As well as injecting their political partisanship into the equation?

Interestingly, Scheuer's memory lapse here, has me wondering if personal political feelings is getting in the way of professional, detached observation and analysis.

The fact is, Michael Scheuer is indeed an expert, is intelligent, and is extremely knowledgeable. But his judgment is flawed, and his interpretation of the known data wrong. He, too, fails to acknowledge the radical ideology of fundamental Islam as a driving force. As the critical factor in the equation.

So....who educated who? Did Ron educate Rudy? Or did Rudy take Ron to school?

Michael Medved:

Many supporters of the so-called peace movement suggest that some dramatic shift in US policy might bring a quick end to the jihadist ferocity that claims innocent victims every day in some tortured Muslim corner of the globe. According to this logic, the brutality of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and other fanatical groups represents a predictable response to American meddling in Islamic affairs. These terror apologists (or at least terror explainers) forcefully reject the now common conservative formulation that “they hate us not for what we do, but for who we are.”

My recommended reading list for Ron Paul and his followers? Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower. In there, you will find that the source of Osama bin Laden's hirabah against the West and against America in particular, isn't American foreign policy, but the radical, Qutbist ideology of a hateful, intolerant fundamentalist practice of Islam. It is the writings of Sayyid Qutb, among others, that is the source of al-Qaeda ideology; one which excuses violence against innocents. And yes, it's because that ideology hates America for its freedoms. Because of America's "decadence", "corruption", and because it is not governed by strict, Islamic Law. Not because of our "entangling alliances" and interactions with foreign nations.

Do you know what "blowback is"? Blowback is what happened to al-Qaeda when they waged violence against the U.S. Payback's a bitch when you're huddled up in a cave, hiding out from further blowback.



*UPDATE* 2007/09/08 18:30 I'd like to add Max Boot's "The Savage Wars of Peace Small Wars and the Rise of American Power" to my reading list recommendation for Ron Paul and his minion. In particular, Ch 15 on Pax Americana, Small Wars in the 21st century. Maybe another Ron Paul post is in order? It's like it's Ron Paul bashing Weekend at Sparks from the Anvil and Flopping Aces.

Articles of Interest:
Was Ron Paul Right or Wrong to Say that America Caused 9/11? by Scott Malensek
In Their Own Words by Bruce Thornton reviewing Raymond Ibrahim's The Al Qaeda Reader
The Master Plan by Lawrence Wright

Isolationist or Non-Interventionist?

Brits4RonPaul offers the standard response in defense of the "Ron Paul is an isolationist" charge:

Paul is clearly not isolationist, because he is for friendship and free trade with the world. Why do people think Brits, Germans, French etc are supporting him too?

Here is a Wikipedia definition of "isolationist":

Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following:

1. Non-interventionism - Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
2. Protectionism - There should be legal barriers to prevent trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.

Besides the "free trade" defense, the Ronulans will also make the distinction that Ron Paul is a "non-interventionist"; not an "isolationist". I prefer to use the term "isolationist" because it gets the Ronulans very, very exasperated with having to go around setting everyone straight on the matter.

Regardless of the word-mincing, even specifying that Ron Paul is a "non-interventionist" is not a policy to be proud of. By that foreign policy position, we would not have gone to war with Germany until directly threatened by Hitler to invade our shores. We would not have fought on behalf of our allies throughout the world against the Nazis and against communism. Stalin was in fact probing and testing the United States during the Cold War. I guess under Ron Paul, the rest of the world be damned...we'll stick our necks out for nobody.

That being said, I do believe in committing our military only to missions that are critical to our national security and defense. Sometimes, however, that does mean sending troops to foreign lands and helping our allies. Sometimes our self-interest coincides with helping others.

Excellent response at The Jump Blog (Interestingly, the post seems designed around testing/baiting the Paulspambots to descend upon the blogpost- much like why I started my Ron Paul posts):

Ron Paul is a delusional tool:

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

So, we shouldn’t entangle ourselves in foreign affairs…except of course to trade with them. And travel to them. And have diplomatic relations with them. Which of course would lead to things like trade treaties. Which lead to real treaties. Which lead to military obligations and charges of American Imperialism and makes a target of our trade partners. Which would put us right back where we are. If, that is, the terrorists didn’t just decide to start knocking us off back here in the good ol’ U.S. of A. Which of course they would. Good idea Ron. It’d be much better to fight ‘em right here.

“Did somebody step on a duck or is it my half-baked platform that stinks?”

Ron Paul is like that friendly neighbor who you invite over to barbecues and wave hi to on occasion as you come home with the groceries. Don't count on him to intervene on your behalf should he find you being mugged, or your family's life threatened; after all, he wouldn't want to invite "blowback" ("Blowback" is what the mugger should be experiencing for his crime- not the other way around). He may be friendly with you; but he won't come to your defense....he'll wait until the mugger comes knocking at his own door before fighting back.

Applying 18th century practice to a 21st century world ignores the changes that have occurred since the founding of our country. Even Thomas Jefferson was not a strict non-interventionist, and recognized a threat when he saw one.

General Pelosi: 2nd in line to the Presidency