What’s old becomes new again: REGIONAL STABILITY is back in style…

Posted two comments at National Review this morning at a piece titled, “Henry Kissinger: Is nuclear catastrophe inevitable?”, by James Lewis. Lewis dissects Kissinger’s op-ed from the Wall Street Journal and he ends up advocating:

“Bottom line: To avoid the “catastrophe” of a hot nuclear arms race in the Middle East, a practical alliance of the West with Russia might save the world.”

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/10/henry_kissinger_is_nuclear_catastrophe_inevitable.html#ixzz3p1FqT5Do
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

The idea of “REGIONAL STABILITY” as an American national security strategy sure seems to be taking hold…  As they say, what’s old becomes new again, all the time.

Here are my two comments, with the comment I responded to included – it’s some vintage stuff from the LB archives on Ukraine and a repeat of my plan from two weeks ago, so just skip it if you’ve read my previous posts:

feralcat Monday, October 19, 2015 2:27 AM

“Bottom line: To avoid the “catastrophe” of a hot nuclear arms race in the Middle East, a practical alliance of the West with Russia might save the world.”

Then at a minimum, neither Rubio, Fiorina nor Christie can ever become President as they all want to not only not even talk to the Russians but they want to shoot down their planes which would not be at all conducive to any kind of alliance, although it would go quite well with starting WWIII between America and Russia.

susanholly Monday, October 19, 2015 8:40 AM

They lost me on the foreign policy end. For two weeks I’ve been saying we should work with the Kurds and other groups in Iraq and come up with a real plan to roll back ISIS from the east as the Russian/Syrian/Iranian block pushes them them eastward from western Syria. We could coordinate with the Russians, while still retaining complete autonomy in our planning and decisions. We should have already consulted with the Russians and established a hot line to protect our pilots and avoid air accidents, like the Israelis did.

John McCreary, a foremost intelligence analyst who retired from DIA and now puts together KGS Nightwatch (a subscription report – https://www.kforcegov.com/solu… on Oct. 14th wrote:

“A significant divergence of policy and strategy between
the US and Russia is now apparent in Syria, Iraq and other Mid-eastern countries. The US strategy since 2011 mostly has focused on building up opposition entities to replace authoritarian governments with democratic systems. That has backfired by contributed to widespread instability; civil war and state fragmentation; legitimation of elected Islamist regimes and a backlash among the local populations in favor of stability, exemplified by political developments in Egypt.

Notable exceptions to this strategy are Afghanistan and Yemen. The
Afghanistan conflict predates the current US administration whose policy has been to reduce the US presence to an embassy by the end of 2016. In Yemen, the US tends to support the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia against the Houthis, possibly because all the Gulf state air forces fly US combat aircraft.

The Russian strategy is built on supporting the governments in power in order to stabilize the existing order. Russia lacks the resources of the US, but President Putin has used his limited resources prudently and maneuvered deftly to advance Russian military presence and influence. Putin’s timing has been almost superb.

For old hands, the Russians and Americans appear to have reversed their traditional roles and swapped strategies and roles. Twenty-five years ago, the Soviets were destabilizing regions by supporting opposition elements in states friendly to the US. Now they are on the side of regional stability.“(Italics are mine)

I’ve been saying since Oct. 5th( http://libertybellediaries.com… , http://libertybellediaries.com…, http://libertybellediaries.com… ) Regional Stability should be our policy, imho, because there are worse things than despots and dictators – like anarchy and power vacuums, which seem to be our trademark end product in the ME these days.

and then:

KlugerRD Monday, October 19, 2015 8:20 AM

Kissinger is brilliant and also identifies what is the obvious.

Back when the Ukraine crisis began he wrote an op-ed about what Obama should do. It was not on ESPN so Obama never saw it,

Kissinger basically said that we should speak to Putin and find out what his interests are. Had we done that Crimea would never have happened. Ukraine was all about economics and their investment in gas pipelines throughout the country.

Putin is not a communist – he is a capitalist – and has spoken extensively about creating a EurAsian economic bloc to compete with the E.U. If you believe in free market capitalism there is nothing wrong with country’s seeking their own interests.

In regard to the Middle East, unless we wish to engage in a major regional war, dealing with Russia in the proper way is the answer to avoiding a nuclear war.

Obama is incompetent which is why we are where we are and will need a new President.

susanholly Monday, October 19, 2015 9:55 AM

Back during Ukraine, to see how the Russians saw things, they leaked an intercepted phone conversation in western media that was between our ambassador in Ukraine and Victoria Nuland at the State Dept, – discussing which opposition leader we wanted to put in Kiev ( http://www.bloomberg.com/news/… ). To understand the Russian reasoning, just think how they interpreted the US trying to install a US puppet government in Kiev, that would isolate them from the their Navy’s warm-water port in Sevastopol in Crimea. ( http://libertybellediaries.com… ).

Putin told Charlie Rose to please make sure his comments were aired without editing in that CBS Charlie Rose interview, 9/27/15 ( http://www.charlierose.com/wat… , start about minute 14). Someone should pin down President Obama on our actions around the world, from Ukraine, Libya (Benghazi too), Iraq and what in the heck our strategy really is in regards to defeating ISIL. Putin laid out his position clearly. And to avoid major misunderstandings and escalating to war before actually talking is insane – we need to try to resolve conflicts by talking first, but instead we’ve got politicians all screaming for military escalation as our first diplomatic option.


Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Military, Politics, Terrorism

10 responses to “What’s old becomes new again: REGIONAL STABILITY is back in style…

  1. They make a Mideast U.S.-Russian Axis sound so attractive. Some of us remember the Cold War, and in addition have read Russian History, both before and after the October Revolution, and know that, regardless of ideological leadership, they have been xenophobic, rabidly expansionist, bellicose and “Nykulturny” throughout. There was a political-philosophical train of thought during the Cold War that historical forces would inevitably push the two Cold War opponents closer together goverenmentally and culturally, as each necessarily took on attributes of the other. Alying with the Russians in the current ISIS-Syria-Iraq kerfuffle would be a massive mistake, although with the advent of the Obama Administration it would appear that the Cold War “Convergence Theory” of U.S.-Russian relations is much closer to reality than in the days of the good old USSR. There is an old Russian adage that goes, “To sup with the Devil, use a long spoon.” Ally with the Kurds—if they will have us after being betrayed by the U.S. for political expediency three times in a generation—because a “deal” with the Russians in the Middle East will leave our hapless, inept “Negotiater-in-Chief” both sorry and sore, and America in no better position stratigecally.

    • I remember the Cold War and read a lot of history too, but I believe some of us remain stuck in that thinking, while the world has changed and the US has moved to take on old Soviet instigating insurgencies policy, while the Russians now are doing what the Leftists railed about the US doing (propping up dictators) trying to promote regional stability (or perhaps with the Russians it’s a more selfish – protecting their oil/military interests in Syria). But still a stabilized political entity in Syria is better than chaos and another power vacuum for Islamist nuts.

      We do not need to become BFFs or agree with the Russian geopolitical long game in the region, but the reality of events on the ground offers an opportunity to make a change in policy, which includes talking to the Russians about our plan to move on ISIS from the east. If we continue to thwart Russian aims in Syria, the civil war grinds along, we do nothing to effectively defeat ISIS and American credibility in the region continues to plummet. So, if we buy into your “avoid the Russians, no matter what”, then ISIS gets stronger, Russian influence continues unabated and the US ends up completely irrelevant.

      What are your policy ideas for the US in regards to Syria and defeating ISIS?

      • And yes, Kinnison, I learned all about the fate of Eastern Europe after WWII and have that in mind too, but if we just walk away from Iraq and Syria or worse continue to foment instability in the region, we are making matters worse. Sitting on your hands is a policy choice too.

    • I just heard it on the news. During that debate, the few times he was allowed to speak, he sounded very knowledgeable on foreign policy and he didn’t pander to partisan politics, just called it like he saw it. He made a comment about operating within the confines of The Constitution if he was President. He’s my top choice at this point.

  2. JK

    You know LB … well you might not seeing as how ol’ JK on any of the places you know ol’ JK to haunt (and all you do not) … but anyway – of all the ahem, “viable candidates” ol’ JK has a preference for … I have to say I agree with you:

    “Top choice.”

    Caveat; ol’ JK has never before admitted to publicly saying “I support _____” this far out from wherever ol’ JK happened to be whenever that place’s Primary was scheduled.

    An aside. Few minutes ago … well maybe an hour or so some talking head on FOX asked, “When was the last time you … (she was apparently asking her fellow talking heads round the table) … the last time any of you saw an Independent win the Presidency? Anybody outside the established parties?”

    None of the talking heads responded and I’m guessing none of ’em heard when I suggested “[T]he last time anybody outside the Establishment won woulda been Abraham Lincoln.”

    ‘Parently nobody pays attention during History class. Or, at least, draws the lesson. (And to tell you the truth too … far as it goes this far out in Silly Season LB … I’d support a hypothetical Trump/Webb ticket!)


    Just chew such a thing over LB … Trump “takes care of the purely domestic stuff” and Webb does a Dick Cheney.


    • I can tell you right now, that I will not ever cast a vote for Donald Trump for President – his character is sadly lacking imo – he carries personal vendettas to extremes. I don’t care if he “tones it down” or focuses on details – he is the consummate bully from what I see so far.

      • JK

        Forgive me LB (as if it’s necessary) when I suggest a Trump/Webb ticket (even though my opinion is in our present “Establishment Media Era” … (and LB, Establishment Media is even more dangerous to our Republic than the Establishment Party System is … or ever can be.

        *Note: I didn’t end that “the Establishment Party System can be” … Nope, indeedy NO, it’s the Media that’s the most dangerous to the Republic.


        And I mentioned “Silly Season”?

        And whom do you LB suppose is responsible for our Forever Campaign?



        Over on another blog you LB know well, there’s this commentator always citing polls – check last POTUS’ ‘Go-Round’ this same time-frame 2008 and you’ll find “The Female To-Be-Coronated” at 58% and the, “If I had a son he might look like Aaron Alexis” at 21%.


        “The Media” – all of the lot – are just, at the most basic, people who are trying to make a living and even though they all well realize Over A Year Out, They’re all talking shit the sole reason (at this point) is because Kanye Kardashian’s hard-on for his mother-in-law Caitlyn Jenner didn’t wind up with son-in-law Lamar Odom dying in a Nevada whorehouse is because all that would be left for the talking heads of the media to whip their jerk-ons would be to explain how Trump’s (innocuous actually) incendiary statement got Jeb Bush riled up so

        was … pretty much

        About as interesting as Gerald Riviera so long ago revealing not a damn thing about Al Capon.

        But then, without a nuke landing from Outer Space – there’s not much for Fox and the rest of the media to do except for maybe a hashtag.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s