Category Archives: Foreign Policy

Since last week’s Benghazi hearing the partisan clamor on the right ended up looking like a witch hunt and truly could there be a more perfect caricature of an evil witch, replete with the cackle, than Hillary Clinton?  I think of her as “thatwitch2016”, but there again my feelings are based on what personally happened to me during impeachment (Messages of mhere, tabbed at the top of my home page), but that aside the Republicans, as usual, followed the bread crumb trail laid down by that witch2016 and into the oven went their attempt to expose her.  Sure, they scored a few hits, exposing her as callous and mendacious, but she walked away having the last  laugh.

The Republicans keep trying to pin the September 11,2012 attack on Hillary Clinton, but the real responsibility for Benghazi resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  The Benghazi “mission” was not in the State Department facility, but at the CIA facility and that’s where the questions need to be answered – what were we really doing in Benghazi.  When that is answered, the timeline moves further back to why did we really oust Gadaffi and who were the sources of this intelligence of impending alleged “genocide” Gadaffi was plotting?  Was he really plotting a “genocide”?  Who really were the “rebels” in Libya, for whom we instigated regime change to protect?  Were they “freedom fighters or radical Islamists and Al Qaeda?  Once that Gordian knot is untangled, let’s ask the same questions in Syria.  How did “Assad the Reformer” poof into “Assad the genocidal monster”?  Who were the sources of the intelligence used to make these assessments?

Yes, whose intelligence does the Obama administration rely on to make foreign policy decisions?  That is the central question!  With that in mind, a day early, I’m doing a throwback Thursday rerun of my January 25,2015 prognosticative blog post on Obama’s turbulent Mid-East magic carpet ride.  Compare my assessment in January to where we are now and along with the questions posed above, ask how the Obama administration went from claiming Yemen a success story in the fight against terrorism, in September 2014, to the collapse of the Yemeni government in January 2015.  Supposedly, our counter-terrorism campaign was a stunning success according to the President in September and in January 2015  terrorists, financed and armed largely by Iran, toppled the government.  How was the intelligence so lacking or whose intelligence did the Obama administration use to form the September 2014 assessment?  Was it flat out false and falsified intelligence or did the administration choose to write their own fairy tale?  These are the questions we really need answered – because the blame goes all the way to top on Benghazi and Hillary served as the administration’s fire break line last week.  For not exposing the administration’s real activities in Benghazi, it’s likely she earned herself a “get out jail free card” in regards to her email problems.  Here’s my big picture view from January 2015:

January 25, 2015

The Yemen “Success” Story In Flames

Malcolm Pollack wrote an excellent post on the Houthi coup in Yemen, “Rock and Roll, Houthi Coup”.  Malcolm compiled the pertinent facts  on Yemen being another  Muslim failed state, clinging to the edge of the cliff – economic despair, a population reliant on government for its basic needs, a water supply imperiled by khat production, and internecine fighting.   He states:

“About Yemen, President Obama — who, when it comes to foreign policy and a whole lot more, has been described of late as “King Midas in reverse” — had this to say back in September:

This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.

As always, up is down, black is white, etc. Meanwhile, this:

The collapse of the U.S.-backed government of Yemen on Thursday has left America’s counter-terrorism campaign “paralyzed”, two U.S. security officials said, dealing a major setback to Washington’s fight against al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), a potent wing of the militant network.”

I recommend you read his entire excellent post.   Now, along with collapse of the Yemeni government,  to the north, Saudi Arabia’s relic of a king passed away.  So, we’ve got the “kingdom” of Saudi Arabia passing the crown to a 79 year-old, who reportedly suffers from dementia, while the court swarms with intrigue. Now, this kingdom feels threatened on all fronts – existentially from Shia expansion, from radicalized Sunni/Salafi Islamist groups, and from crashing oil prices.  In reaction to these external threats they’re building walls (a defensive posture) to keep foreign dangers at bay and bankrolling President Obama’s half-hearted battle to defeat IS/ISIL/ISIS (a money down the drain effort).  John McCreary’s Nightwatch predicts, the new king will likely move toward more conservative domestic postures, which makes sense, to try to preserve power and maintain political stability within the kingdom.  Nightwatch’s analysis states:

“Be prepared for policy changes. The instinctive reaction of living systems is to contract during times of internal stress, and even more so during a leadership crisis. Leadership transition is a time of vulnerability. Most systems increase their defensive vigilance during that period.

Applying that to Saudi Arabia, guards will be extra vigilant to protect the new King and the Crown Prince. Restrictions on population movements and border controls usually tighten. Dissidents and miscreants usually go to ground for a while.

The protective and defensive instinct also applies to policies. That instinct ensures the continuation of the bedrock principles of a state, but not necessarily more discretionary initiatives. In Saudi Arabia, the monarchy, Wahhabism, the tribal heritage and oil are four of the bedrock principles. Experiments in modernity are expendable.

The emphasis in a leadership transition always is stability because when a King dies, the Kingdom can be at risk. Abdallah did all that a reigning monarch can do to protect the monarchy. Readers must expect that his policies and programs will be modified, assuming they survive at all.”

Shia powers smell weakness, as do the radicalized bands of Islamist nutcases, emboldening them to embark on ambitious offensive measures to seize more territory in rudderless states, left from the oh so glorious Arab Spring, our ass backwards, leader from behind, championed.  Sorry, namby-pamby, narrative writers at the White House, the rest of the world isn’t in the business of selling Obama t-shirts, Obama policies or the Obama “legacy” (#ChickensCameHomeToRoost), so they already wrote Obama off as a weak, unreliable partner.

So, we’ve got bands of drug-crazed, drug-financed Islamists and batshit crazy Shia mullahs fighting to rule swaths of war-ravaged, barren sand pits, swarming with millions of hopeless, starving, illiterate people. Yemen is just one more to add to the list.

Don’t expect the Obama administration to do more than rewrite their “narrative” and send John Kerry bearing love beads, groveling to the Iranians once more, begging for them to cooperate on Peace in the region. “Up in smoke” goes the Obama foreign policy on Yemen, hailed only months ago as a huge “success” – like Somalia, no less (yep, failed state Somalia is a Obama success too, who knew….).  To round out President Obama’s capitulation to the threat we can not name – (Islamic Imperialism) , stay tuned, because soon we will see how, the Iranian regime, Terror Central, incorporates nuclear weapons into their OFFENSIVE  MILITARY POSTURE.   One can only wonder if the Obama administration has chewed too much khat like the Somalis and Yemenis or scarier to consider, perhaps these stellar graduates from some of America’s finest universities really believe their own bullshit, oops, “narratives”.

Psst, no, no, no watch and see, it’s those nefarious “right-wing, gun-toting, clinging to their religion Americans” (ostensibly, those dastardly WASPs)  who pose the greatest threat to America.  Let me sip another cup of tea:-)

Here is the Congressman Pompeo line of inquiry – Ambassador Stevens met with an Al Qaeda affiliate hours before the attack.

“Clinton: ‘I Know Nothing’ About Ambassador Stevens’s Meeting with Al-Qaeda Affiliate”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425935/hillary-clinton-benghazi-testimony-chris-stevens

The following is a rerun of a LB blog post from September 22, 2013, so when you consider this information, just ask yourself the question posed in the title:

Benghazi ARB report: Bird Cage Liner or Probing Investigation?

I posted my Syria plan ideas at the Small Wars Journal, under a piece from War on the Rocks, “A New Plan for the United States in Syria“, by Ben Jonsson which starts off with this shift in strategy:

“As the Obama administration rethinks its Syria strategy, it should start by redefining U.S. interests in the face of an increasingly fractured Syrian conflict and adopting a new strategy that seeks to immediately reduce the level of violence by enforcing a pause on offensive operations by all sides in Syria.”

That goal is lofty, but at this point there’s nothing to induce that Syrian/Russian/Iranian alliance nor the assorted Syrian rebel groups to agree to a ceasefire.  I wrote my plan in the comments, it’s a repeat, so just skip it if you’ve been reading my posts the last couple weeks:

libertybelle October 20, 2015 – 12:08pm

The US calling for a ceasefire will fall on deaf ears at this point. I believe we should be formulating a plan to attack ISIS from the east, as the Syrian/Russian/Iranian alliance moves eastward from western Syria. We should discuss our plan to roll back ISIS with our allies and the Russian led alliance and while we should not become part of the Russian alliance, we should maintain open dialogue with Putin on our aims. It’s imperative that we talk to Putin, but the US must maintain total control over our plan. We should emphasize the urgency of getting to a ceasefire in Syria quickly with the more “moderate” Syrian rebels and the US should work with Putin to insure that safe zones can quickly be set up, with the aid of the international community, to protect civilians and those who put down their arms. Pouring more arms in to “moderate Syrians” will prolong the carnage.

We must recognize that Assad is a second tier problem compared to ISIS. If a “Russian-friendly” regime is in the wings to replace Assad, then Putin may be willing to let the good folks in Brussels deal with Assad. Syria has been a Russian client-state for decades and we lose nothing if a Russian-friendly government replaces Assad, but we will lose a great deal if ISIS fills a power vacuum should Assad fall first.

If we demonstrate an ability to implement a plan to work with forces in Iraq to really tackle ISIS, many of our traditional allies may prefer to align with the US rather than the Russian/Iranian/Syrian alliance, and this would counter the growing Iranian influence. We might be able to restore American credibility in the process too, which would aid us long-term. This plan would require deft diplomacy, speedy action and a willingness to use adequate military force to a clearly defined mission – defeat the Islamic State.

A pitfall to avoid would be to invest too many American boots on the ground and end up in an occupying mode in Iraq again, which would not help our long-term strategy in the region, which should be promoting REGIONAL STABILITY.

There was a 2014 paper in SSI by General Huba Wass de Czege ( http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/parameters/Issues/Winter_… ),which had some ideas on how to prevent power vacuums as we progress, by relying on local and tribal leaders to create grassroots law and order as we learn and grow our capacity. We need to utilize new ideas and be open to change, while keeping in mind that as ISIS is rolled back, quickly establishing local security capacity is vital and since the “national government” has demonstrated no ability to do this, in addition to the ethnic divide between the national government and local population in ISIS territory, perhaps working with local leadership might work better. This is just an idea. There was July 2015 SSI paper by Dr. Robert E. Lamb,”Strategic Insights: Fragile States Cannot Be Fixed With State-Building” (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/index.cfm/articles/Fragile…), which explains this common pitfall with international efforts at “nation-building”.

Expecting a ceasefire, absent any real US plan, especially with the US reputation at a low-ebb, will get us nowhere.

https://libertybellediaries.com/2015/10/08/my-plan-for-the-syria-mess-inc…

I believe this “ceasefire first” plan relies on magical thinking and a lot of glossing over the serious problems with our Bosnia efforts, which this author seemed to be unaware of or ignored. “Moderate Syrian” rebels will not agree to a ceasefire immediately and frankly, the Assad regime, in an existential struggle, likewise, at this point has no incentive to agree to one. It seems to me like a retread of the Bosnia Plan. My idea apparently seems too controversial for consideration – oh no, we can’t talk to Putin, but the only way to have a seat at the table or to counter the Russian/Iranian moves is to be relevant. Expecting the “international community” or in this case, the writer listed regional powers, to tighten the diplomatic screws enough to force compliance to a ceasefire seems unlikely to work, imho.

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.