Category: Foreign Policy

  • 12345 ….the kind of thing an idiot would have on his luggage!

    Well what makes it even funnier is that that is the password to at least one email account of top aides to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Yes it was literally 12345. Also seems that I am not the first person to make the connection between this and Space Balls.

    Expatriate Syrians pounced, gleefully delving through this treasure trove and pulling out newsworthy gems (some even joked about sending replies from the accounts, for example, “Curse your soul, Hafez”). There were few smoking guns, but one email, from U.N.-based press aide Sheherazad Jaafari to Damascus-based press aide Luna Chebel, was particularly interesting. It advises the presidential office on how to best handle Assad’s Dec. 7 interview with ABC’s Barbara Walters. If this is the quality of staff work Bashar al-Assad is getting… well, it explains a lot:

    So now would be a good idea to see if your password is strong enough. Oh and to stop everything you are doing if you have not seen Space Balls. Seriously right now. Ludicrous Speed. GO!

    “kind of thing an idiot would have on his luggage!”

    Love that line.

  • End of World War II worries Germans

    Those ingrates, the Germans, are finally having to face life without Americans in their communities according to an article in The Local sent to us by Old Trooper;

    Mayor Andreas Starke of Bamberg said there will be a gradual reduction of troop numbers over the next few years before the bases officially shutter.

    Starke said although the closures would have “far-reaching consequences,” hurting craftsmen and other businesses who have made millions of euros from the Americans, he said it will also have benefits.

    “In a crisis, there’s also a chance,” Starke said, pointing to the city’s long-running need for new student housing to support the University of Bamberg.

    It’s hard to feel their pain, after those years I faced discrimination and derision from the Germans. I loved the food and the countryside and the hours I spent biking through their fields, but there was an anti-American sentiment that ran through the population that makes me smile a little bit at their confusion. I always knew this day was coming, but apparently they didn’t.

    Germans might find some comfort in the fact that Panama is better than it ever was with the Americans. Of course, the Panamanians now enjoy the influx of Chinese money. Somehow I don’t think the Germans would like that option very much.

  • Falklands redux

    Cowardice and betrayal are again brewing in the Falkland Islands. The Falklands are a group of sparsely inhabited British islands a couple hundred miles off the coast of Argentina, most famous for the brief British-Argentinian conflict over them in 1982. In that conflict an increasingly unpopular military junta, facing growing economic problems, looked to invade the islands and subjugate its British citizens as a way of distracting from their domestic inadequacies. Margret Thatcher responded by deploying the British military and crushing the Argentine invasion. As some of you may have heard, over the past couple of years they’ve discovered a substantial amount of economically viable oil around these same islands. With the depletion of the reserves in the North Sea some figures estimate that these new discoveries could be as much as triple the UK’s existing reserves.

    Lo and behold, this discovery has given the economically floundering, left wing Kirchner government in Argentina all the reason it needs to stir up trouble by again attempting to colonize the Falklands and its British population. In addition to some saber rattling, economic sanctions and not so subtle threats the Kirchner administration has enlisted the aid of left wing thug Hugo Chavez and his counter-U.S. Community of Latin American and Caribbean States.

    Now if you thought to yourself, “Well the British are the United States’ oldest and most steadfast ally; the Obama administration will denounce this cynical aggression and help protect both their ally’s sovereignty and the Falkland people’s right to self determination” then you’d be absolutely, 100% wrong. Back in the summer of 2011, while British troops were fighting, bleeding and dying shoulder to shoulder with American troops in Afghanistan, the Obama administration was signing off on an Organization of American States statement calling for the British to enter into negotiations with Argentina over the status of the Malvinas Islands, the Argentinian name for the Falklands. All this at the behest of the leftist and increasingly anti-American government of Argentina.

    Then, on the 20th of January, the Obama administration twisted the knife it drove into the back of the British by issuing a statement through the State Department saying, “This is a bilateral issue that needs to be worked out directly between the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom,” the official said. “We encourage both parties to resolve their differences through dialogue in normal diplomatic channels. We recognize de facto United Kingdom administration of the islands but take no position regarding sovereignty.” Needless to say this left many people floored.

    Not only is the Obama administration falling on the wrong side of the geopolitical arena by backing political aggression pursued by organizations dominated by left wing autocrats and anti-American populists but they’re betraying our oldest ally and undercutting the basic principals of liberty and self determination for the 90%+ of the Falkland Islanders who are fully enfranchised British citizens wanting to remain so. All morality, character and faithfulness aside these caustic positions undercut security in the Western Hemisphere by appeasing aggression and placating governments which have no intent to ally themselves with us in the future. This sort of diplomatic timidity serves only to undercut peace and degrade the value of the friendship of the United States. How can we ask our allies, especially those as dear as the British, to send their men and women onto the battlefield to fight and die for our collective security if we won’t even stand up in a council meeting for it?

  • Tossing UK under the bus

    So what would have happened in 1982 in regards to the Falklands if Jimmy Carter had been president instead of Ronald Reagan? well, we get a peak into that “what if” with Jimmy Carter’s second term being served by President Obama;

    In response to a question on the Falklands at Thursday’s State Department press briefing, a US government spokesman supported direct negotiations between Buenos Aires and London over the sovereignty of the Falklands, something that Argentina has been pressing for aggressively, and which Britain sees as completely unacceptable.

    As far is London is concerned, the sovereignty of the Falklands was decisively settled in the 1982 war when British forces retook the Islands after Argentina’s brutal military junta invaded them. The Falklands’ 3,000 inhabitants are 90 per cent British (according to the 2006 census), and 0.1 percent Argentine, and have no desire to live under the boot of Buenos Aires.

    So much for the right of self-determination. What coulld this administration possible gain by letting Argentina pick at this scab? Well, except to maybe act like liberals. This is the second time this issue has been brought up in the last few months. Earlier last year, the US supported an OAS call for negotiation of the settles issue, according to Fox News.

    Thanks to Old Trooper for the link.

  • Those in the know are running for the exits in Afghanistan

    The Associated Press is reporting that Afghans are seeking to get off that sinking ship at the fastest rate since the war began despite proclamations from the Obama administration that all is well.

    More Afghans fled the country and sought asylum abroad in 2011 than in any other year since the start of the decade-long war, suggesting that many are looking for their own exit strategy as international troops prepare to withdraw.

    From January to November, more than 30,000 Afghans applied for political asylum worldwide, a 25 percent increase over the same period the previous year and more than triple the level of just four years ago, according to U.N. statistics obtained by The Associated Press ahead of their scheduled publication later this year.

    Many Afghans are turning to a thriving and increasingly sophisticated human smuggling industry to get themselves — or in most cases, their sons — out of the country. They pay anywhere from a few hundred dollars to cross into Iran or Pakistan to more $25,000 for fake papers and flights to places like London or Stockholm.

    Thousands of refugees also return each year, but their numbers have been dwindling as the asylum applications rise. Both trends highlight worries among Afghans about what may happen after 2014, when American and other NATO troops turn security over to the Afghan army and police.

    I’ll avoid insulting both the intelligence of TAH readers and the plight of the Vietnamese by drawing too many comparisons to that country circa 1974-75 but the signals coming from those on the ground are clear: the Afghans have lost faith in both the willingness of the United States to finish the job started in 2001 and the Karzai regime’s ability to remain in power once the last vestige of hope departs on a UH-60. That country, and all out interests there, are circling the drain but the people holding the stopper seem too busy lining up donors and making speeches for the 2012 campaign to pull it back from the brink.

    1,886 dead Americans and counting.

  • Sunni dogs and Shiite cats living together, the story nobody is talking about.

    What if I told you that the Shiite theocracy in Iran had been found by a federal court to be legally responsible for training Sunni al Qaeda to carry out attacks against the United States as far back as at least 1998, at least? What if I told you this had happened over a month ago. You’d probably say, “Hey man, that’s a big deal, we’ve been told for the past decade that Iran can’t be working with al Qaeda, they hate each other. Besides, the media would be all over that.” Right?

    Drum roll please…

    According to Thomas Joscelyn at The Long War Journal this is exactly what happened. According to the decision handed down by D.C. District Court Judge John D. Bates the Iranian regime has been using al Qaeda as a tool to attack US interests around the world and gave them the training they needed to attack our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. To quote from the ruling:

    Iran had been the preeminent state sponsor of terrorism against United States interests for decades. Throughout the 1990s – at least – Iran regarded al Qaeda as a useful tool to destabilize U.S. interests. As discussed in detail below, the government of Iran aided, abetted and conspired with Hezbollah, Osama bin Laden, and al Qaeda to launch large-scale bombing attacks against the United States by utilizing the sophisticated delivery mechanism of powerful suicide truck bombs. Hezbollah, a terrorist organization based principally in Lebanon, had utilized this type of bomb in the devastating 1983 attacks on the U.S. embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon. Prior to their meetings with Iranian officials and agents, Bin Laden and al Qaeda did not possess the technical expertise required to carry out the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. The Iranian defendants, through Hezbollah, provided explosives training to Bin Laden and al Qaeda and rendered direct assistance to al Qaeda operatives. Hence, for the reasons discussed below the Iranian defendants provided material aid and support to al Qaeda for the 1998 embassy bombings and are liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs.

    The only notice this got the media is a brief editorial by Hoover Fellow Marc Thiessen in the Washington Post.

    It’s no doubt worth noting that both Judge Bates and Mr. Thiessen are connected to former President George W. Bush. Bates was appointed by Bush and Thiessen worked in the WH as a speechwriter. Both have proved to be a real fly in the ointment of the left over the past ten years. I can’t help but think the media blackout of what is, quite frankly, a historical ruling is interconnected.

    UPDATE:

    For those interested the entire opinion can be found here.

  • As the situation on the ground dictates…

    One of my favorite games played by the Pentagon is to replace uniformed personnel with contractors and pretend the mission of the “eliminated” billet has gone away. As the Obama administration continues to pretend that the situation on the ground permits the natural withdrawal of military personnel comes the news that Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan will be taking on private military contractors to provide physical security for the base. According to the Marine Corps Times:

    U.S. commanders want civilian contractors to provide military security at the Marine Corps’ largest base in Afghanistan as a planned withdrawal of U.S. forces from the war-torn country expands.

    “As we prepare for fewer Marine boots on the ground, the requirement to maintain a certain level of security aboard Camp Leatherneck must be maintained,” Player said. “That’s where contractor support will provide Camp Leatherneck security where Marines have in the past.”

    U.S. Army Contracting Command announced a competition for the job in November. At least 166 civilian guards will be needed at all times, meaning the company that wins the contract will almost certainly need more to account for vacations and other leave time. Companies who seek the job must hire guards who are citizens of the U.S. or some of its closest allies: the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

    Now, of course, the stationing of PMCs on base, even foreign nationals is nothing new to those of use who served in Iraq. I’ve worked with Marine Corps provisional security companies a few times from 3/2, 8th Tanks and, during work up, 2nd LAAD. As long as the mission is performed by a reputable company and the base QRF is still Marine Corps there’s nothing about the job that requires it be done by uniformed service members.

    Still, this begs the question, why replace Marines with contractors? The demand hasn’t gone away, Afghanistan will be as dangerous on the PMCs first day as the Corps’ last. The mission is already mainly performed by Reservists and the shortage of fresh troops isn’t nearly as critical as in the heart of the surge in Iraq. I doubt the DoD is saving any significant money, PMCs are not cheap and it doesn’t reduce the end force reduction goals with the looming cuts. They certainly aren’t going to do a better job.

    The answer is simple: reducing the number of American troops in Afghanistan creates the phony impression the war is “winding down” and the Obama administration is reducing our commitment there. Of course neither of these things are true but, as already displayed by the sabotaging of the negotiations in Iraq to keep the desperately needed US troops there another year, this administration doesn’t actually care about winning our nation’s military campaigns, only their party’s political ones.

  • Preempting the truth with worried mockery

    A certain self-consciousness reveals itself in this recent Ted Rall cartoon. The immediate set up for the image is three veterans sitting around a military or patriotic (likely referred to in his circles as jingoistic) bar. The scene evokes the stock conceptualization of a VFW or American Legion Post. The middle patron is missing his arm. All are wearing belligerent, seemingly ignorant t-shirts. The man on the left makes mention of the betrayal of the political class in the war, an allusion to the common theme in the German Army after the Treaty of Versailles. The second compares his treatment to that of the maligned generation of Vietnam vets. The last declares his intention to run for Congress. Perhaps, for the left, the most frightening inclination of all.

    It’s the laughable paradigm in which Rall and his left-wing ilk regard us, as easily manipulated and reactionary fools, sacrificed on the alter of forces beyond our reckoning. This sort of pretentious elitism is witnessed time and again by those most divorced from the union of civic duty and personal sacrifice in the pursuit of the actual common good.

    This silly dialogue reveals something else: fear of exposure.

    Illustrating the cause for people like Rall’s concern is Fred and Kim Kagan’s excellent piece on the deteriorating situation in Iraq. It was precise in identifying the cause of the breakdown of peace and security for the people in Iraq since the end of the successful Bush/McCain “surge”. I’ll quote briefly:

    With administration officials celebrating the “successful” withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, thanking antiwar groups for making that withdrawal possible, and proffering outrageous claims about Iraq’s “stability,” “sovereignty,” and the “demilitarization” of American foreign policy even as Iraq collapses, it is hard to stay focused on America’s interests and security requirements. Especially in an election year, the temptation will only grow to argue about who lost Iraq, whether it was doomed from the outset, whether the current disaster “proves” either that the success of the surge was inherently ephemeral or that the withdrawal of U.S. troops caused the collapse.

    The withdrawal of all American military forces has greatly reduced America’s leverage in Iraq. U.S. military forces were a buffer to prevent political and ethno-sectarian friction from becoming violent by guaranteeing Maliki against a Sunni coup d’état and guaranteeing the Sunnis against a Shiite campaign of militarized repression. The withdrawal of that buffer precipitated this crisis and removed much of our leverage.

    Like it or not, the timing of the moves against Hashimi et al. upon Maliki’s return from Washington has created a perception in Iraq that these actions were authorized by Washington.

    After hundreds of billions of dollars and almost 4,500 American service member’s lives the Obama Administration scuttled the negotiations required to keep American forces in Iraq. After eight years of blood, sweat and treasure the end was decided by Democratic political pollsters in campaign season.

    Explosions are ripping through Baghdad at a rate and ferocity not seen since 2007. The Shiite Prime Minister is purging his government of the Sunni members needed to retain a pluralistic state, literally the day after American withdrawal. The Kurds edge closer to open secession and the Iranian Quds Force establish safe houses across the country.

    Peter Wehner in Commentary quite succinctly said:

    What is happening in Iraq is sickening, in part because the gains came at such a high cost and in part because what is happening there was so avoidable. Obama was handed a war that was largely won. What America had given to Iraq is what the Arab scholar Fouad Ajami called “the foreigner’s gift.” But Iraq being Iraq, maintaining an American troop presence there, separate from engaging in combat operations, was necessary if Iraq was ever to become whole again. President Obama has undone much of what had been achieved there, almost in the blink of an eye. And when the history of his administration is written, it increasingly looks as if he will be fairly judged to have been the man who lost Iraq.

    In an administration full of failures, this one may well rank among the highest. The human cost to Iraq and the strategic damage to America may be unimaginable. And so unnecessary.

    And so, full circle, we come back to the paranoid fear of intellectual midgets like Rall. Knowing the devastating judgment an unbiased history will lay upon the Obama Administration for so callous an abandonment of the Iraqis at at the cost of so many American’s lives he attempts to preempt this searing truth with petty mockery and stumbling historical analogy. Keep your heads on the swivel and call out this caustic and hateful manipulation when you see it.