SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Peter Dierks who wrote (68713)1/20/2014 1:11:35 AM
From: greatplains_guy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Peter Dierks

  Respond to of 71588
 
How in Good Conscience?
By Charles Krauthammer
January 17, 2014

By early 2011, writes former defense secretary Robert Gates, he had concluded that President Obama “doesn’t believe in his own [Afghanistan] strategy, and doesn’t consider the war to be his.”

Not his? America is at war and he’s America’s commander in chief. For the soldier being shot at in the field, it makes no difference under whose administration the fighting began. In fact, three out of four Americans killed in Afghanistan have died under Barack Obama’s command. That’s ownership enough.

Moreover, Gates’s doubts about Obama had begun long before. A year earlier, trying to understand how two senior officials could be openly working against expressed policy, Gates concluded that “the most likely explanation was that the president himself did not really believe the strategy he had approved would work.” This, just four months after Obama ordered his 30,000 troop “surge” into Afghanistan, warning the nation that “our security is at stake .?.?. the security of our allies, and the common security of the world.”

The odd thing about Gates’s insider revelation of Obama’s lack of faith in his own policy is that we knew it all along. Obama was emitting discordant notes from the very beginning. In the West Point “surge” speech itself, the very sentence after that announcement consisted of the further announcement that the additional troops would be withdrawn in 18 months.

How can any commander be so precise so far in advance about an enterprise as inherently contingent and unpredictable? It was a signal to friend and foe that he wasn’t serious. And as if to amplify that signal, Obama added that “the nation that I’m most interested in building is our own,” thus immediately undermining the very importance of the war to which he was committing new troops.

Such stunning ambivalence, I wrote at the time, had produced the most uncertain trumpet ever sounded by a president. One could sense that Obama’s heart was never in it.

And now we know. Indeed, this became hauntingly clear to Obama’s own defense secretary within just a few months — before the majority of the troops had arrived in the field, before the new strategy had even been tested.

How can a commander in good conscience send troops on a mission he doesn’t believe in, a mission from which he knows some will never return? Even worse, Obama ordered a major escalation, expending much blood but not an ounce of his own political capital. Over the next four years, notes Gates with chagrin, Obama ignored the obligation of any commander to explain, support and try to rally the nation to the cause.

And when he finally terminated the surge, he did so in the middle of the 2012 fighting season. Militarily incoherent — but politically convenient. It allowed Obama to campaign for reelection proclaiming that “the tide of war is receding.”

One question remains, however. If he wasn’t committed to the mission, if he didn’t care about winning, why did Obama throw these soldiers into battle in the first place?

Because for years the Democrats had used Afghanistan as a talking point to rail against the Iraq War — while avoiding the politically suicidal appearance of McGovernite pacifism. As consultant Bob Shrum later admitted, “I was part of the 2004 Kerry campaign, which elevated the idea of Afghanistan as ‘the right war’ to conventional Democratic wisdom. This was accurate as criticism of the Bush Administration, but it was also reflexive and perhaps by now even misleading as policy.”

Translation: They were never really serious about Afghanistan. (Nor apparently about Iraq either. Gates recounts with some shock that Hillary Clinton admitted she opposed the Iraq surge for political reasons, and Obama conceded that much of the opposition had indeed been political.) The Democratic mantra — Iraq War, bad; Afghan War, good — was simply a partisan device to ride anti-Bush, anti-Iraq War feeling without appearing squishy.

Look, they could say: We’re just being tough and discriminating.

Iraq is a dumb war, said Obama repeatedly. It’s a war of choice. Afghanistan is a war of necessity, the central front in the war on terror. Having run on that, Obama had a need to at least make a show of trying to win the good war, the smart war.

“If I had ever come to believe the military part of the strategy would not lead to success as I defined it,” writes Gates. “I could not have continued signing the deployment orders.” The commander in chief, Gates’s book makes clear, had no such scruples.

washingtonpost.com



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (68713)2/1/2014 1:28:53 PM
From: greatplains_guy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
Obama's Unserious Foreign Policy
Fickle foreign policy, increased risk.
By Angelo Codevilla
January 30, 2014

Obama’s address on the State Of The Union showed the lack of seriousness about international affairs by which his Administration has been making the world ever more dangerous for Americans. The passages on war and peace, like the rest of the speech, consisted of patent untruths loosely related to Administration programs – the former meant to justify the latter.

Whatever one might think of Obama’s domestic agenda, these couplets reflected a serious intent to advance it. Thus, because ”climate change” is the cause of Western drought and Eastern floods, Obama will impose new restrictions on the use of fossil fuels; and because “reform” of unemployment insurance will get people back to work, Congress must extend the term of current insurance for 1.6 million people. People with an interest in such things know to disregard the nonsense and to take the agenda as seriously as it is meant.

But Obama’s discussion of war and peace verged on abstraction from reality, was not heartfelt, and is certain to call forth disdain. For Obama, the world’s major events might as well be happening on the planet Pluto. Russia is re establishing itself in its “near abroad,” and working with Iran to project a neo-Soviet agenda from Southwest Asia to the Mediterranean. China is inexorably asserting sovereignty over the Western Pacific. As Islam’s Sunni and Shia factions tear at each other’s vitals, they seem to agree only on contempt for America. Obama mentioned none of this.

Rather, as with regard to domestic matters he claimed credit in advance for events that he hopes will take place, and asked for the people’s support on the basis of that claim. He ended the war in Iraq, and is ending the war in Afghanistan. In Syria, he is supporting the good guys. He has put al Qaeda “on the path to defeat, and is doing the same to all similar folk. He is ridding Syria of Chemical weapons, while American diplomacy is at work settling the Arab-Israeli war – the key to a larger peace. He asked Americans to believe that Obama is moving the country “off a permanent war footing.” How, he gave no hint. It is difficult to imagine foreign nations, friend and foe alike, taking any of this seriously. Or Americans for that matter.

In fact, foreigners ceased taking Obama seriously long ago. That is one reason why so much of the world is moving in directions that do not augur well for America.

Foreigners’ respect for America has declined because, in fact, Obama has neither taken seriously the need to maintain that respect nor understood what it would take to do it. On the one hand, he may have imagined that the world would have embraced him because it is a writ-large version of the US New Left. On the other, seriousness about taking power within America precluded seriousness about howto deal with China or Russia, never mind the Muslim world.

That set of priorities explains, for example, his 2009 decision to commit 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan while simultaneously announcing their withdrawal, or the decisions in 2013 loudly to contest China’s assertion of a security zone over international waters while quietly respecting it, to demand that Syria’s dictator be removed while taking actions that ensured his survival, to react to general revulsion at the government’s capting of ordinary Americans’ electronic communications by loudly announcing reforms that amount to nothing. There seems to be no theme to the pudding, because none is intended.

A foreign policy seriously intended to restore the respect and geopolitical balance on which peace depends would have to return to fundamentals. Here are a few examples of what seriousness might look like.

America should thwart Russia’s attempt to force the Ukrainian people back into Moscow’s sphere of influence. That is because, now as in previous centuries, dominion of Ukraine would be the core of a Russian empire capable of exerting hegemonic force over Europe – something inherently very dangerous to America. Russia’s ruling class is playing a weak hand and is susceptible to prohibitions on the travel and financial transactions of its members. The US government could impose such sanctions and lead Europe – or force it – to join in them.

Maintaining the Pax Americana in the Pacific, for which so many American gave their lives, is the key to ensuring that China’s rise will produce neither another Sino-Japanese war, nor turn the Western Pacific into a zone that Americans must seek Chinese permission to enter. Doing that, quite simply, will take building a Navy at least half again as large as we have now, and fortifying US bases in the region. That in turn would require a commitment to missile defense considerably more serious than the token measures that the Obama and Bush Administrations have taken.

Ending “permanent war footing,” ever so essential for any nation’s sustainability, requires being honest about who threatens us, and putting them out of action while not bothering others. The Bush and Obama Administrations, each for its own reasons, preferred to pretend that our problem consisted of bands of rogues extraneous to any authorities. Both Administrations tried and failed to identify and police such rogues in alien lands while so wrapping America in “security measures” as to make it almost unrecognizable. That way lies permanent war with foreigners and strife amongst ourselves.

In fact however terrorists have targeted America from, and on behalf of, causes espoused by any number of foreign regimes. In Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, for example, while the governments are on good terms with America, many members of the larger regime finance and incite anti American terrorists. The Palestinian Authority inculcates hate for Americans into generation after generation of children – and does so with US government money. Holding governments responsible for what comes from within their borders – by wars as sharp as they are short – is the essence of common sense. It is also essential to earning respect.

That, and focusing “security measures” on likely suspects rather than on the general population – is the precondition for ending America’s permanent war footing.

Angelo M. Codevilla is professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University and a fellow of the Claremont Institute. He is the author of To Make And Keep Peace Aming Ourselves And With All Nations to be published by the Hoover Institution Press.

thefederalist.com



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (68713)11/30/2014 4:24:16 PM
From: greatplains_guy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 71588
 
As Democrat infighting intensifies, Hagel allies fire back at the White House
by Noah Rothman
posted at 2:01 pm on November 30, 2014

Among Democrats, fighting is breaking out all over.

The Senate’s third-ranking Democrat, Chuck Schumer (D-NY), is hurling criticisms toward the White House over Barack Obama’s handling of the recession and his myopic and politically ruinous obsession with reforming the nation’s health care system amid that economic downturn.

In response, the White House took what Reuters called the “unusual step” of publicly pledging to veto an overdue plan to reform the nation’s tax code which Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has been in the process of negotiating with House Republicans.

When Obama announced his intention to extend legal status to millions of illegal immigrants by executive fiat, it also exposed fissures within the Democrat Party. A number of Senate Democrats, including Sens. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Joe Donnelly (D-IN), and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), expressed their dissatisfaction with Obama’s actions in clear and uncertain terms.

Manchin, Donnelly, and Heitkamp had previously spoken in support Sen. Mary Landrieu’s (D-LA) failed effort to pass a measure approving the construction of the Keystone Pipeline against the wishes of the White House. Alongside Sens. Jon Tester (D-MT), these centrist Democrats could emerge as a bloc of votes that would help the incoming majority Republican Party advance legislation through the Senate.

“There is clearly a lot of unhappiness and a lot of mistrust that exists between the president and his congressional party,” Rutgers University professor Ross Baker told Reuters.

The gradual implosion of the Democrat Party’s formerly vaunted unity is not merely limited to Capitol Hill. The squabbling is coming from inside the White House.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel might have gone quietly. Reports that few have reason to doubt indicate that he was as frustrated with the president’s management as were his last two predecessors. The even-tempered former Nebraska politician has never been one to backbite. He may have been content to shuffle off stage and keep his unfiltered thoughts about Obama to himself if the administration had not tried to cast him as the source of so many of its present difficulties on the defense policy front. But the political service Hagel could perform as a symbol of an administration sloughing off encumbering detritus proved too tempting for the White House.

“Hagel never really proved himself,” NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell revealed while summarizing the thoughts of one or several of her sources within the administration.

“Mr. Hagel has often had problems articulating his thoughts — or administration policy — in an effective manner,” The New York Times echoed.

In a subsequent Times dispatch, one administration official said that the president felt he would benefit politically from the removal of one of his Cabinet members. “So he went for the low-hanging fruit,” the official said casually.

The president’s aides went on, apparently, to cast Hagel in the role of scapegoat.

“Aides said Mr. Obama made the decision to remove his defense secretary on Friday after weeks of rising tensions over a variety of issues, including what administration officials said were Mr. Hagel’s delays in transferring detainees from the military prison in Guantanamo Bay and a dispute with Susan E. Rice, the national security advisor, over Syria policy.”


For a time, sources close to Hagel had kept their side of the story to themselves. Someone described as a “senior defense official” told CBS that Hagel was “fed up with micromanagement” from the administration, but that was the extent of Hagel’s attempt at self-defense. That was not to last.

In an illuminating piece in The Wall Street Journal published last week, individuals close to Hagel revealed that he was only leaving his post after a “year of frustrations.” That piece included a number of damning quotes that indicate that Obama, not Hagel, is the source of the administration’s woes.

“One of the things that Hagel values most is clarity,” said a confidante of the defense secretary. “That’s not something that this White House has always done well.”

James Jeffrey, who served as Mr. Obama’s ambassador in Turkey and Iraq, said of Mr. Hagel: “His removal won’t make things better because he was not the source of the problem. The problems seem to be closer to the president.”


Moreover, the report alleges, Hagel served as Obama’s unsolicited Casandra. He reportedly issued a series of prophetic warnings about the deteriorating international security environment that went unheeded.

Sources close to Hagel suggest that he became disillusioned when the president cancelled a plan to strike pro-Assad targets in Syria just one day before they were slated to begin. The Pentagon chief’s exasperation grew when he reportedly warned the president to take firm and prompt measures which would communicate to Vladimir Putin that his aggression in Ukraine would not go unopposed. “Moscow – not the Middle East – posed the most serious long-term threat to international security, Mr. Hagel told the president,” The Journal reported.

“Mr. Hagel tried to move the ball forward with Mr. Obama directly. In a private meeting in late July, he warned Mr. Obama that the U.S. wasn’t focused enough on Russia, and was lurching from crisis to crisis without direction, according to a senior defense official,” the report revealed.

All of Hagel’s warnings went ignored. America is now entering the conflict in Syria too late and with conditions far less favorable than they were in the autumn of 2013. Russia has expanded the conflict in Ukraine, and threatens to destabilize more of that country and other former Soviet Republics. Hagel may not be the farsighted sage that this report portrays him to be, but it is clear his side of the story of his time in the White House is a bit more complicated than the administration would like to suggest.

If nothing else, it seems likely that Hagel will be the third consecutive secretary of defense serving under Obama to write an unfavorable account of the president’s managerial style after leaving office.

hotair.com